G.R. No. 185572.February 7, 2012.

CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CORP.

(GROUP), petitioner, vs. HON. CESAR D. SANTAMARIA,
in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 145,
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, HERMINIO HARRY
L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROGER R. RAYEL,
ROMEL R. BAGARES, CHRISTOPHER FRANCISCO C.
BOLASTIG, LEAGUE OF URBAN POOR FOR ACTION
(LUPA), KILUSAN NG MARALITA SA MEYCAUAYAN
(KMMLUPA CHAPTER), DANILO M. CALDERON,
VICENTE C. ALBAN, MERLYN M. VAAL, LOLITA S.
QUINONES, RICARDO D. LANOZO, JR., CONCHITA G.
GOZO, MA. TERESA D. ZEPEDA, JOSEFINA A.
LANOZO, and SERGIO C. LEGASPI, JR., KALIPUNAN
NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY), EDY
CLERIGO, RAMMIL DINGAL, NELSON B. TERRADO,
CARMEN DEUNIDA, and EDUARDO LEGSON,
respondents.

Constitutional Law Immunity from Suit Restrictive Theory

Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory, it is crucial
to ascertain the legal nature of the act involvedwhether the entity
claiming immunity performs governmental, as opposed to
proprietary, functions.In JUSMAG v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 239 SCRA 224 (1994), this Court affirmed the
Philippines adherence to the restrictive theory as follows: The
doctrine of state immunity from suit has undergone further
metamorphosis. The view evolved that the existence of a contract
does not,per se, mean that sovereign states may, at all times, be
sued in local courts. The complexity of relationships between
sovereign states, brought about by their increasing commercial
activities, mothered a more restrictive application of the
doctrine. xxxxxxxxx As it stands now, the application of the
doctrine of immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or
governmental activities (jure imperii). The mantle of state
immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and
proprietary acts(jure gestionis). Since the Philippines adheres to
the restrictive
 _______________

*EN BANC.

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.

Santamaria

theory, it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act

involvedwhether the entity claiming immunity performs
governmental, as opposed to proprietary, functions. As held in
United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 (1985). The
restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated
differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of
an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It
does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its
sovereign functions.
Same Same Although China National Machinery &
Equipment Corp. (Group) (CNMEG) claims to be a government
owned corporation, it failed to adduce evidence that it has not
consented to be sued under Chinese law.It is readily apparent
that CNMEG cannot claim immunity from suit, even if it
contends that it performs governmental functions. Its designation
as the Primary Contractor does not automatically grant it
immunity, just as the term implementing agency has no precise
definition for purposes of ascertaining whether GTZ was immune
from suit. Although CNMEG claims to be a governmentowned
corporation, it failed to adduce evidence that it has not consented
to be sued under Chinese law. Thus, following this Courts ruling
in Deutsche Gesellschaft, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, CNMEG is to be presumed to be a governmentowned
and controlled corporation without an original charter. As a
result, it has the capacity to sue and be sued under Section 36 of
the Corporation Code.
Same Same In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act of 1976 provides for a waiver by implication of
state immunity. Although there is no similar law in the
Philippines, there is reason to apply the legal reasoning behind the
waiver in this case.In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act of 1976 provides for a waiver by implication of
state immunity. In the said law, the agreement to submit disputes
to arbitration in a foreign country is construed as an implicit
waiver of immunity from suit. Although there is no similar law in
the Philippines, there is reason to apply the legal reasoning
behind the waiver in this case.

191

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 191

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.

Santamaria

International Law Vienna Convention Treaties Executive

Agreements Words and Phrases Article 2(1) of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention) defines a
treaty as follows: [A]n international agreement concluded between
States in written form and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation An executive
agreement is similar to a treaty, except that the former (a) does not
require legislative concurrence (b) is usually less formal and (c)
deals with a narrower range of subject matters.Article 2(1) of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna
Convention) defines a treaty as follows: [A]n international
agreement concluded between States in written form and
governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever
its particular designation. In Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA
244 (2011), this Court held that an executive agreement is similar
to a treaty, except that the former (a) does not require legislative
concurrence (b) is usually less formal and (c) deals with a
narrower range of subject matters. Despite these differences, to be
considered an executive agreement, the following three requisites
provided under the Vienna Convention must nevertheless concur:
(a) the agreement must be between states (b) it must be written
and (c) it must governed by international law. The first and the
third requisites do not obtain in the case at bar.
Constitutional Law Immunity from Suit International Law
Since the Contract Agreement explicitly provides that Philippine
law shall be applicable, the parties have effectively conceded that
their rights and obligations thereunder are not governed by
international law.Article 2 of the Conditions of Contract, which
under Article 1.1 of the Contract Agreement is an integral part of
the latter, states: APPLICABLE LAW AND GOVERNING
LANGUAGE The contract shall in all respects be read and
construed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. The
contract shall be written in English language. All correspondence
and other documents pertaining to the Contract which are
exchanged by the parties shall be written in English language.
Since the Contract Agreement explicitly provides that Philippine
law shall be applicable, the parties have effectively conceded that
their rights and obligations thereunder are not governed by
international law. It is therefore clear from the foregoing reasons
that the Contract Agreement does not partake of the nature of an
executive agreement. It is merely an ordinary commercial
contract that can be questioned before the local courts.

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Inocencio R. Vivero, Jr. Luis M.C. Pangulayan and
Pagulayan & Associates Law Office for petitioner.
Roque and Butuyan Law Office for respondents.
Office of the Government Corporate Counsel for Movant
Intervenor Northrail.

SERENO,J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer

for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
and/or Preliminary Injunction assailing the 30 September
2008 Decision and 5 December 2008 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 103351.1
On 14 September 2002, petitioner China National
Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) (CNMEG),
represented by its chairperson, Ren Hongbin, entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding with the North Luzon
Railways Corporation (Northrail), represented by its
president, Jose L. Cortes, Jr. for the conduct of a feasibility
study on a possible railway line from Manila to San
Fernando, La Union (the Northrail Project).2
 On 30 August 2003, the Export Import Bank of China
(EXIM Bank) and the Department of Finance of the
Philippines (DOF) entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (Aug 30 MOU), wherein China agreed to
extend Preferential Buyers Credit to the Philippine
government to finance the

_______________
1China National Machinery & Equipment Corporation (Group) v. Hon.
Cesar D. Santamaria, et al.
2Petition, Rollo, Vol. I, p. 25 Memorandum of Understanding dated 14
September 2002, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 400406.

193

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 193

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

Northrail Project.3 The Chinese government designated

EXIM Bank as the lender, while the Philippine government
named the DOF as the borrower.4 Under the Aug 30 MOU,
EXIM Bank agreed to extend an amount not exceeding
USD 400,000,000 in favor of the DOF, payable in 20 years,
with a 5year grace period, and at the rate of 3% per
annum.5
On 1 October 2003, the Chinese Ambassador to the
Philippines, Wang Chungui (Amb. Wang), wrote a letter to
DOF Secretary Jose Isidro Camacho (Sec. Camacho)
informing him of CNMEGs designation as the Prime
Contractor for the Northrail Project.6
On 30 December 2003, Northrail and CNMEG executed
a Contract Agreement for the construction of Section I,
Phase I of the North Luzon Railway System from Caloocan
to Malolos on a turnkey basis (the Contract Agreement).7
The contract price for the Northrail Project was pegged at
USD 421,050,000.8
On 26 February 2004, the Philippine government and
EXIM Bank entered into a counterpart financial agreement
Buyer Credit Loan Agreement No. BLA 04055 (the Loan
Agreement).9 In the Loan Agreement, EXIM Bank agreed
to extend Preferential Buyers Credit in the amount of USD
400,000,000 in favor of the Philippine government in order
to finance the construction of Phase I of the Northrail

Project.10
Project.10

_______________
3 Petition, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 2526 Memorandum of Understanding
dated 30 August 2003, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 308310, 407409.
4Id.
5Memorandum of Understanding dated 30 August 2003, Rollo, Vol. I,
pp. 308310, 407409.
6 Petition, Rollo, Vol. I, p. 26 Letter dated 1 October 2003, Rollo, Vol.
I, pp. 311312.
7 Contract Agreement, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 126130, 412414.
8 Memorandum of Agreement dated December 2003, Rollo, Vol. I, pp.
198201.
9 Loan Agreement, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 242282.
10Id.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

On 13 February 2006, respondents filed a Complaint for

Annulment of Contract and Injunction with Urgent Motion
for Summary Hearing to Determine the Existence of Facts
and Circumstances Justifying the Issuance of Writs of
Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction and/or
TRO against CNMEG, the Office of the Executive
Secretary, the DOF, the Department of Budget and
Management, the National Economic Development
Authority and Northrail.11 The case was docketed as Civil
Case No. 06203 before the Regional Trial Court, National
Capital Judicial Region, Makati City, Branch 145 (RTC Br.
145). In the Complaint, respondents alleged that the
Contract Agreement and the Loan Agreement were void for
being contrary to (a) the Constitution (b) Republic Act No.
9184 (R.A. No. 9184), otherwise known as the Government
Procurement Reform Act (c) Presidential Decree No. 1445,
otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code and
(d) Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
Administrative Code.12
RTC Br. 145 issued an Order dated 17 March 2006
setting the case for hearing on the issuance of injunctive
reliefs.13 On 29 March 2006, CNMEG filed an Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration of this Order.14 Before RTC Br.
Motion for Reconsideration of this Order.14 Before RTC Br.
145 could rule thereon, CNMEG filed a Motion to Dismiss
dated 12 April 2006, arguing that the trial court did not
have jurisdiction over (a) its person, as it was an agent of
the Chinese government, making it immune from suit, and
(b) the subject matter, as the Northrail Project was a
product of an executive agreement.15
On 15 May 2007, RTC Br. 145 issued an Omnibus Order
denying CNMEGs Motion to Dismiss and setting the case
for summary hearing to determine whether the injunctive
reliefs

_______________
11Complaint, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 102125.
12Id.
13Order dated 17 March 2006, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 290291.
14Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 292307.
15Motion to Dismiss, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 324369.

195

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 195

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

prayed for should be issued.16 CNMEG then filed a

Motion for Reconsideration,17 which was denied by the trial
court in an Order dated 10 March 2008.18 Thus, CNMEG
filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
the Issuance of TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
dated 4 April 2008.19
In the assailed Decision dated 30 September 2008, the
appellate court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.20
Subsequently, CNMEG filed a Motion for
21
Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a
Resolution dated 5 December 2008.22 Thus, CNMEG filed
the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 21
January 2009, raising the following issues:23

Whether or not petitioner CNMEG is an agent of the sovereign

Peoples Republic of China.
Whether or not the Northrail contracts are products of an
executive agreement between two sovereign states.
Whether or not the certification from the Department of
Foreign Affairs is necessary under the foregoing circumstances.
Whether or not the act being undertaken by petitioner CNMEG
is an act jure imperii.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals failed to avoid a
procedural limbo in the lower court.
Whether or not the Northrail Project is subject to competitive
public bidding.

_______________
16Omnibus Order dated 15 May 2007, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 648658.
17Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 663695.
18Order dated 10 March 2008, Rollo, Vol. I, p. 737.
19Petition for Certiorari, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 738792.
20CA Decision, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 8199.
21Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 9711001.
22CA Resolution, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 100102.
23Petition, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 2728.

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

Whether or not the Court of Appeals ignored the ruling of this

Honorable Court in the Neri case.

CNMEG prays for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 06203
before RTC Br. 145 for lack of jurisdiction. It likewise
requests this Court for the issuance of a TRO and, later on,
a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain public
respondent from proceeding with the disposition of Civil
Case No. 06203.
The crux of this case boils down to two main issues,
namely:
1.Whether CNMEG is entitled to immunity,
precluding it from being sued before a local court.
2.Whether the Contract Agreement is an executive
agreement, such that it cannot be questioned by or
before a local court.
First issue: Whether CNMEG is entitled to immunity
This Court explained the doctrine of sovereign immunity
in Holy See v. Rosario,24 to wit:
 There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity,
each widely held and firmly established. According to the classical
or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent,
be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign.
According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of
the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts
or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to
private acts or acts jure gestionis. (Emphasis supplied
citations omitted.)
xxxxxxxxx
The restrictive theory came about because of the entry of
sovereign states into purely commercial activities remotely
connected with the discharge of governmental functions. This is
particularly true with respect to the Communist states which took
control of nationalized business activities and international
trading.

_______________
24G.R. No. 101949, 1 December 1994, 238 SCRA 524, 535.

197

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 197

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

In JUSMAG v. National Labor Relations Commission,25

this Court affirmed the Philippines adherence to the
restrictive theory as follows:

The doctrine of state immunity from suit has undergone

further metamorphosis. The view evolved that the existence of a
contract does not, per se, mean that sovereign states may, at all
times, be sued in local courts. The complexity of relationships
between sovereign states, brought about by their increasing
commercial activities, mothered a more restrictive application of
the doctrine.
xxxxxxxxx
As it stands now, the application of the doctrine of
immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or
governmental activities (jure imperii). The mantle of state
immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and
proprietary acts(jure gestionis).26 (Emphasis supplied.)

Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory, it

is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act involved
whether the entity claiming immunity performs
governmental, as opposed to proprietary, functions. As held
in United States of America v. Ruiz27

The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only

when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the
foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs.
Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the
level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly
given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business
contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions.28

_______________
25G.R. No. 108813, 15 December 1994, 239 SCRA 224.
26Id., at pp. 231232.
27221 Phil. 179 136 SCRA 487 (1985).
28Id., at p. 184 p. 492.

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

A.CNMEG is engaged in a proprietary activity.

A threshold question that must be answered is whether
CNMEG performs governmental or proprietary functions.
A thorough examination of the basic facts of the case would
show that CNMEG is engaged in a proprietary activity.
The parties executed the Contract Agreement for the
purpose of constructing the Luzon Railways, viz.:29

WHEREAS the Employer (Northrail) desired to construct the

railways from Caloocan to Malolos, section I, Phase I of Philippine
North Luzon Railways Project (hereinafter referred to as THE
PROJECT)
AND WHEREAS the Contractor has offered to provide the
Project on Turnkey basis, including design, manufacturing,
supply, construction, commissioning, and training of the
Employers personnel
AND WHEREAS the Loan Agreement of the Preferential
Buyers Credit between ExportImport Bank of China and
Department of Finance of Republic of the Philippines
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to sign this Contract for
the Implementation of the Project.

The abovecited portion of the Contract Agreement,
however, does not on its own reveal whether the
construction of the Luzon railways was meant to be a
proprietary endeavor. In order to fully understand the
intention behind and the purpose of the entire
undertaking, the Contract Agreement must not be read in
isolation. Instead, it must be construed in conjunction with
three other documents executed in relation to the Northrail
Project, namely: (a) the Memorandum of Understanding
dated 14 September 2002 between Northrail and
CNMEG30 (b) the letter of Amb. Wang dated 1 October

_______________
29Contract Agreement, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 127, 413.
30Supra note 2.

199

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 199

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

2003 addressed to Sec. Camacho31 and (c) the Loan

Agreement.32
1.Memorandum of Understand
ing dated 14 September 2002
The Memorandum of Understanding dated 14
September 2002 shows that CNMEG sought the
construction of the Luzon Railways as a proprietary
venture. The relevant parts thereof read:

WHEREAS, CNMEG has the financial capability, professional

competence and technical expertise to assess the state of the
[Main Line North (MLN)] and recommend implementation plans
as well as undertake its rehabilitation and/or modernization
WHEREAS, CNMEG has expressed interest in the
rehabilitation and/or modernization of the MLN from Metro
Manila to San Fernando, La Union passing through the provinces
of Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac, Pangasinan and La Union (the
Project)
WHEREAS, the NORTHRAIL CORP. welcomes CNMEGs
proposal to undertake a Feasibility Study (the Study) at no cost
to NORTHRAIL CORP.
WHEREAS, the NORTHRAIL CORP. also welcomes
CNMEGs interest in undertaking the Project with
Suppliers Credit and intends to employ CNMEG as the
Contractor for the Project subject to compliance with
Philippine and Chinese laws, rules and regulations for the
selection of a contractor
WHEREAS, the NORTHRAIL CORP. considers CNMEGs
proposal advantageous to the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines and has therefore agreed to assist CNMEG in the
conduct of the aforesaid Study
xxxxxxxxx

_______________
31Supra note 6.
32Supra note 9.

200

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

II.APPROVAL PROCESS
2.1As soon as possible after completion and presentation
of the Study in accordance with Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4
above and in compliance with necessary governmental laws,
rules, regulations and procedures required from both
parties, the parties shall commence the preparation and
negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract (the
Contract) to be entered into between them on the
implementation of the Project. The parties shall use
their best endeavors to formulate and finalize a
Contract with a view to signing the Contract within
one hundred twenty (120) days from CNMEGs
presentation of the Study.33 (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, it was CNMEG that initiated the undertaking,
and not the Chinese government. The Feasibility Study
was conducted not because of any diplomatic gratuity from
or exercise of sovereign functions by the Chinese
government, but was plainly a business strategy employed
by CNMEG with a view to securing this commercial
enterprise.
2.Letter dated 1 October 2003
That CNMEG, and not the Chinese government,
initiated the Northrail Project was confirmed by Amb.
Wang in his letter dated 1 October 2003, thus:

1.CNMEG has the proven competence and capability to

undertake the Project as evidenced by the ranking of 42 given by
the ENR among 225 global construction companies.
2.CNMEG already signed an MOU with the North Luzon
Railways Corporation last September 14, 2000 during the visit of
Chairman Li Peng. Such being the case, they have already
established an initial working relationship with your North Luzon
Railways Corporation. This would categorize CNMEG as the
state corporation within the Peoples Republic of China
which initiated our Governments involvement in the
Project.

_______________
33Supra note 2, at 400402.

201

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 201

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

3.Among the various state corporations of the Peoples

Republic of China, only CNMEG has the advantage of being fully
familiar with the current requirements of the Northrail Project
having already accomplished a Feasibility Study which was used
as inputs by the North Luzon Railways Corporation in the
approvals (sic) process required by the Republic of the
Philippines.34 (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, the desire of CNMEG to secure the Northrail
Project was in the ordinary or regular course of its business
as a global construction company. The implementation of
the Northrail Project was intended to generate profit for
CNMEG, with the Contract Agreement placing a contract
price of USD 421,050,000 for the venture.35 The use of the
term state corporation to refer to CNMEG was only
descriptive of its nature as a governmentowned and/or
controlled corporation, and its assignment as the Primary
Contractor did not imply that it was acting on behalf of
China in the performance of the latters sovereign
functions. To imply otherwise would result in an absurd
situation, in which all Chinese corporations owned by the
state would be automatically considered as performing
governmental activities, even if they are clearly engaged in
commercial or proprietary pursuits.
3.The Loan Agreement
CNMEG claims immunity on the ground that the Aug
30 MOU on the financing of the Northrail Project was
signed by the Philippine and Chinese governments, and its
assignment as the Primary Contractor meant that it was
bound to perform a governmental function on behalf of
China. However, the Loan Agreement, which originated
from the same Aug. 30 MOU, belies this reasoning, viz.:

Article 11.xxx (j) Commercial ActivityThe execution and

delivery of this Agreement by the Borrower constitute, and the
Bor

_______________
34Supra note 6.
35Supra note 8.

202

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

rowers performance of and compliance with its obligations

under this Agreement will constitute, private and commercial
acts done and performed for commercial purposes under
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and neither the
Borrower nor any of its assets is entitled to any immunity
or privilege (sovereign or otherwise) from suit, execution
or any other legal process with respect to its obligations
under this Agreement, as the case may be, in any
jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Borrower does
not waive any immunity with respect of its assets which are (i)
used by a diplomatic or consular mission of the Borrower and (ii)
assets of a military character and under control of a military
authority or defense agency and (iii) located in the Philippines
and dedicated to public or governmental use (as distinguished
from patrimonial assets or assets dedicated to commercial use).
(Emphasis supplied.)
 (k)Proceedings to Enforce AgreementIn any proceeding in
the Republic of the Philippines to enforce this Agreement, the
choice of the laws of the Peoples Republic of China as the
governing law hereof will be recognized and such law will be
applied. The waiver of immunity by the Borrower, the irrevocable
submissions of the Borrower to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of
the courts of the Peoples Republic of China and the appointment
of the Borrowers Chinese Process Agent is legal, valid, binding
and enforceable and any judgment obtained in the Peoples
Republic of China will be if introduced, evidence for enforcement
in any proceedings against the Borrower and its assets in the
Republic of the Philippines provided that (a) the court rendering
judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in
accordance with its jurisdictional rules, (b) the Republic had
notice of the proceedings, (c) the judgment of the court was not
obtained through collusion or fraud, and (d) such judgment was
not based on a clear mistake of fact or law.36

Further, the Loan Agreement likewise contains this

express waiver of immunity:

15.5Waiver of ImmunityThe Borrower irrevocably and

unconditionally waives, any immunity to which it or its property
may at any time be or become entitled, whether characterized as
sover

_______________
36Supra note 9, at 260261.

203

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 203

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

eign immunity or otherwise, from any suit, judgment, service of

process upon it or any agent, execution on judgment, setoff,
attachment prior to judgment, attachment in aid of execution to
which it or its assets may be entitled in any legal action or
proceedings with respect to this Agreement or any of the
transactions contemplated hereby or hereunder. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Borrower does not waive any immunity in
respect of its assets which are (i) used by a diplomatic or consular
mission of the Borrower, (ii) assets of a military character and
under control of a military authority or defense agency and (iii)
located in the Philippines and dedicated to a public or
governmental use (as distinguished from patrimonial assets or
assets dedicated to commercial use).37

Thus, despite petitioners claim that the EXIM Bank

extended financial assistance to Northrail because the
bank was mandated by the Chinese government, and not
because of any motivation to do business in the
Philippines,38 it is clear from the foregoing provisions that
the Northrail Project was a purely commercial transaction.
Admittedly, the Loan Agreement was entered into
between EXIM Bank and the Philippine government, while
the Contract Agreement was between Northrail and
CNMEG. Although the Contract Agreement is silent on the
classification of the legal nature of the transaction, the
foregoing provisions of the Loan Agreement, which is an
inextricable part of the entire undertaking, nonetheless
reveal the intention of the parties to the Northrail Project
to classify the whole venture as commercial or proprietary
in character.
Thus, piecing together the content and tenor of the
Contract Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding
dated 14 September 2002, Amb. Wangs letter dated 1
October 2003, and the Loan Agreement would reveal the
desire of CNMEG to construct the Luzon Railways in
pursuit of a purely commercial activity performed in the
ordinary course of its business.

_______________
37Id., at pp. 268269.
38Petition, Rollo, Vol. I, p. 47.

204

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

B.CNMEG failed to adduce

evidence that it is immune
from suit under Chinese law.
Even assuming arguendo that CNMEG performs
governmental functions, such claim does not automatically
vest it with immunity. This view finds support in Malong v.
Philippine National Railways, in which this Court held
that (i)mmunity from suit is determined by the character
of the objects for which the entity was organized.39
of the objects for which the entity was organized.39
In this regard, this Courts ruling in Deutsche
Gesellschaft Fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) v. CA40
must be examined. In Deutsche Gesellschaft, Germany and
the Philippines entered into a Technical Cooperation
Agreement, pursuant to which both signed an arrangement
promoting the Social Health InsuranceNetworking and
Empowerment (SHINE) project. The two governments
named their respective implementing organizations: the
Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health
Insurance Corporation (PHIC) for the Philippines, and GTZ
for the implementation of Germanys contributions. In
ruling that GTZ was not immune from suit, this Court
held:

The arguments raised by GTZ and the [Office of the Solicitor

General (OSG)] are rooted in several indisputable facts. The
SHINE project was implemented pursuant to the bilateral
agreements between the Philippine and German
governments. GTZ was tasked, under the 1991 agreement,
with the implementation of the contributions of the German
government. The activities performed by GTZ pertaining to
the SHINE project are governmental in nature, related as
they are to the promotion of health insurance in the Philippines.
The fact that GTZ entered into employment contracts with the
private respondents did not disqual

_______________
39222 Phil. 381, 384 138 SCRA 63, 67 (1985).
40G.R. No. 152318, 16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 150.

205

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 205

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

ify it from invoking immunity from suit, as held in cases such as

Holy See v. Rosario, Jr., which set forth what remains valid
doctrine:
Certainly, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign
state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test. Such
an act can only be the start of the inquiry. The logical
question is whether the foreign state is engaged in the
activity in the regular course of business. If the foreign
 state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the
particular act or transaction must then be tested by its
nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an
incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially
when it is not undertaken for gain or profit.
Beyond dispute is the tenability of the comment points (sic)
raised by GTZ and the OSG that GTZ was not performing
proprietary functions notwithstanding its entry into the
particular employment contracts. Yet there is an equally
fundamental premise which GTZ and the OSG fail to address,
namely: Is GTZ, by conception, able to enjoy the Federal
Republics immunity from suit?
The principle of state immunity from suit, whether a local state
or a foreign state, is reflected in Section 9, Article XVI of the
Constitution, which states that the State may not be sued
without its consent. Who or what consists of the State? For one,
the doctrine is available to foreign States insofar as they are
sought to be sued in the courts of the local State, necessary as it is
to avoid unduly vexing the peace of nations.
If the instant suit had been brought directly against the
Federal Republic of Germany, there would be no doubt that it is a
suit brought against a State, and the only necessary inquiry is
whether said State had consented to be sued. However, the
present suit was brought against GTZ. It is necessary for us to
understand what precisely are the parameters of the legal
personality of GTZ.
Counsel for GTZ characterizes GTZ as the
implementing agency of the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany, a depiction similarly adopted by the
OSG. Assuming that the characterization is correct, it does not
automatically invest GTZ with the ability to invoke State
immunity from suit. The distinction lies in whether the agency
is incorporated or unincorporated.
xxxxxxxxx

206

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

State immunity from suit may be waived by general or special

law. The special law can take the form of the original charter of
the incorporated government agency. Jurisprudence is replete
with examples of incorporated government agencies which were
ruled not entitled to invoke immunity from suit, owing to
provisions in their charters manifesting their consent to be sued.
xxxxxxxxx
It is useful to note that on the part of the Philippine
government, it had designated two entities, the Department of
Health and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC),
as the implementing agencies in behalf of the Philippines. The
PHIC was established under Republic Act No. 7875, Section 16 (g)
of which grants the corporation the power to sue and be sued in
court. Applying the previously cited jurisprudence, PHIC would
not enjoy immunity from suit even in the performance of its
functions connected with SHINE, however, (sic) governmental in
nature as (sic) they may be.
Is GTZ an incorporated agency of the German
government? There is some mystery surrounding that
question. Neither GTZ nor the OSG go beyond the claim
that petitioner is the implementing agency of the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. On the
other hand, private respondents asserted before the Labor Arbiter
that GTZ was a private corporation engaged in the
implementation of development projects. The Labor Arbiter
accepted that claim in his Order denying the Motion to
Dismiss, though he was silent on that point in his Decision.
Nevertheless, private respondents argue in their Comment that
the finding that GTZ was a private corporation was never
controverted, and is therefore deemed admitted. In its Reply,
GTZ controverts that finding, saying that it is a matter of public
knowledge that the status of petitioner GTZ is that of the
implementing agency, and not that of a private corporation.
In truth, private respondents were unable to adduce any
evidence to substantiate their claim that GTZ was a private
corporation, and the Labor Arbiter acted rashly in accepting such
claim without explanation. But neither has GTZ supplied any
evidence defining its legal nature beyond that of the bare
descriptive implementing agency. There is no doubt that
the 1991 Agreement designated GTZ as the implementing
agency in behalf of the German government. Yet the catch
is

207

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 207

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria
that such term has no precise definition that is responsive
to our concerns. Inherently, an agent acts in behalf of a
principal, and the GTZ can be said to act in behalf of the
German state. But that is as far as implementing agency
could take us. The term by itself does not supply whether
GTZ is incorporated or unincorporated, whether it is
owned by the German state or by private interests,
whether it has juridical personality independent of the
German government or none at all.
xxxxxxxxx
Again, we are uncertain of the corresponding legal
implications under German law surrounding a private
company owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. Yet
taking the description on face value, the apparent
equivalent under Philippine law is that of a corporation
organized under the Corporation Code but owned by the
Philippine government, or a governmentowned or
controlled corporation without original charter. And it
bears notice that Section 36 of the Corporate Code states
that [e]very corporation incorporated under this Code
has the power and capacity x x x to sue and be sued in its
corporate name.
It is entirely possible that under German law, an entity such as
GTZ or particularly GTZ itself has not been vested or has been
specifically deprived the power and capacity to sue and/or be sued.
Yet in the proceedings below and before this Court, GTZ has
failed to establish that under German law, it has not
consented to be sued despite it being owned by the Federal
Republic of Germany. We adhere to the rule that in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a
particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of
the Philippines, and following the most intelligent
assumption we can gather, GTZ is akin to a governmental
owned or controlled corporation without original charter
which, by virtue of the Corporation Code, has expressly
consented to be sued. At the very least, like the Labor Arbiter
and the Court of Appeals, this Court has no basis in fact to
conclude or presume that GTZ enjoys immunity from suit.41
(Emphasis supplied.)

_______________
41Id., at pp. 165173.

208
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

Applying the foregoing ruling to the case at bar, it is

readily apparent that CNMEG cannot claim immunity
from suit, even if it contends that it performs governmental
functions. Its designation as the Primary Contractor does
not automatically grant it immunity, just as the term
implementing agency has no precise definition for
purposes of ascertaining whether GTZ was immune from
suit. Although CNMEG claims to be a governmentowned
corporation, it failed to adduce evidence that it has not
consented to be sued under Chinese law. Thus, following
this Courts ruling in Deutsche Gesellschaft, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, CNMEG is to be presumed to
be a governmentowned and
controlled corporation without an original charter. As a
result, it has the capacity to sue and be sued under Section
36 of the Corporation Code.
C.CNMEG failed to present a
certification from the Depart
ment of Foreign Affairs.
In Holy See,42 this Court reiterated the oftcited doctrine
that the determination by the Executive that an entity is
entitled to sovereign or diplomatic immunity is a political
question conclusive upon the courts, to wit:

In Public International Law, when a state or international

agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a
foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state
where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant
is entitled to immunity.
xxxxxxxxx
In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign
government or the international organization to first
secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign
or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office
conveys its en

_______________
42Supra note 24.

209
 VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 209
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

dorsement to the courts varies. In International Catholic

Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter directly to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, informing the latter that the
respondentemployer could not be sued because it enjoyed
diplomatic immunity. In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48
SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent the trial
court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1
(1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
to request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the
Commander of the United States Naval Base at Olongapo City,
Zambales, a suggestion to respondent Judge. The Solicitor
General embodied the suggestion in a Manifestation and
Memorandum asamicus curiae.
In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs,
through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be
allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed
the said Department to file its memorandum in support of
petitioners claim of sovereign immunity.
In some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity was
submitted directly to the local courts by the respondents through
their private counsels (Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945]
Miquiabas v. PhilippineRyukyus Command, 80 Phil. 262 [1948]
United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990] and
companion cases). In cases where the foreign states bypass the
Foreign Office, the courts can inquire into the facts and make
their own determination as to the nature of the acts and
transactions involved.43 (Emphasis supplied.)

The question now is whether any agency of the

Executive Branch can make a determination of immunity
from suit, which may be considered as conclusive upon the
courts. This Court, in Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),44
emphasized the DFAs competence and authority to provide
such necessary determination, to wit:

_______________
43Id., at pp. 531533.
44330 Phil. 573 262 SCRA 39 (1996).

210
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

The DFAs function includes, among its other

mandates, the determination of persons and institutions
covered by diplomatic immunities, a determination which,
when challenge, (sic) entitles it to seek relief from the
court so as not to seriously impair the conduct of the
countrys foreign relations. The DFA must be allowed to plead
its case whenever necessary or advisable to enable it to help keep
the credibility of the Philippine government before the
international community. When international agreements are
concluded, the parties thereto are deemed to have likewise
accepted the responsibility of seeing to it that their
agreements are duly regarded. In our country, this task
falls principally of (sic) the DFA as being the highest
executive department with the competence and authority
to so act in this aspect of the international arena.45
(Emphasis supplied.)

Further, the fact that this authority is exclusive to the

DFA was also emphasized in this Courts ruling in
Deutsche Gesellschaft:

It is to be recalled that the Labor Arbiter, in both of his

rulings, noted that it was imperative for petitioners to secure from
the Department of Foreign Affairs a certification of respondents
diplomatic status and entitlement to diplomatic privileges
including immunity from suits. The requirement might not
necessarily be imperative. However, had GTZ obtained such
certification from the DFA, it would have provided factual
basis for its claim of immunity that would, at the very
least, establish a disputable evidentiary presumption that
the foreign party is indeed immune which the opposing
party will have to overcome with its own factual evidence.
We do not see why GTZ could not have secured such
certification or endorsement from the DFA for purposes of
this case. Certainly, it would have been highly prudential for
GTZ to obtain the same after the Labor Arbiter had denied the
motion to dismiss. Still, even at this juncture, we do not see any
evidence that the DFA, the office of the executive branch
in charge of our diplomatic relations, has indeed
 _______________
45Id., at pp. 587588 p. 48.

211

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 211

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

endorsed GTZs claim of immunity. It may be possible that

GTZ tried, but failed to secure such certification, due to the same
concerns that we have discussed herein.
Would the fact that the Solicitor General has endorsed
GTZs claim of States immunity from suit before this Court
sufficiently substitute for the DFA certification? Note that
the rule in public international law quoted in Holy See
referred to endorsement by the Foreign Office of the State
where the suit is filed, such foreign office in the
Philippines being the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Nowhere in the Comment of the OSG is it manifested that
the DFA has endorsed GTZs claim, or that the OSG had
solicited the DFAs views on the issue. The arguments raised
by the OSG are virtually the same as the arguments raised by
GTZ without any indication of any special and distinct perspective
maintained by the Philippine government on the issue. The
Comment filed by the OSG does not inspire the same
degree of confidence as a certification from the DFA would
have elicited.46 (Emphasis supplied.)

In the case at bar, CNMEG offers the Certification

executed by the Economic and Commercial Office of the
Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China, stating that the
Northrail Project is in pursuit of a sovereign activity.47
Surely, this is not the kind of certification that can
establish CNMEGs entitlement to immunity from suit, as
Holy See unequivocally refers to the determination of the
Foreign Office of the state where it is sued.
Further, CNMEG also claims that its immunity from
suit has the executive endorsement of both the OSG and
the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC),
which must be respected by the courts. However, as
expressly enunciated in Deutsche Gesellschaft, this
determination by the OSG, or by the OGCC for that
matter, does not inspire the same degree of confidence as a
DFA certification. Even with a DFA certification, however,
it must be remembered that this Court is not
 _______________
46Supra note 40, at 174175.
47Petition, Rollo, Vol. I, p. 30.

212

212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

precluded from making an inquiry into the intrinsic

correctness of such certification.
D.An agreement to submit any
dispute to arbitration may be
construed as an implicit
waiver of immunity from suit.
In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act of 1976 provides for a waiver by implication of state
immunity. In the said law, the agreement to submit
disputes to arbitration in a foreign country is construed as
an implicit waiver of immunity from suit. Although there is
no similar law in the Philippines, there is reason to apply
the legal reasoning behind the waiver in this case.
The Conditions of Contract,48 which is an integral part
of the Contract Agreement,49 states:

33.SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION

33.1.Amicable Settlement
Both parties shall attempt to amicably settle all disputes or
controversies arising from this Contract before the
commencement of arbitration.

_______________
48Conditions of Contract, Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 202241, 415455.
49Supra note 7. Clause 1.1 of the Contract Agreement provides:
The following documents shall constitute the Contract between the Employer
and the Contractor, and each shall be read and construed as an integral part of the
Contract:
(1)Contract Agreement
(2)Amendments, if any to the Contract documents agreed by the Parties
(3)Conditions of Contract
(4)Technical Documents
(5)Preliminary Engineering Design including Bill of Quantities
(6)Technical Specification
 213

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 213

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

33.2.Arbitration
All disputes or controversies arising from this Contract which
cannot be settled between the Employer and the Contractor shall
be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules at present in force and as may be amended by
the rest of this Clause. The appointing authority shall be Hong
Kong International Arbitration Center. The place of arbitration
shall be in Hong Kong at Hong Kong International Arbitration
Center (HKIAC).

Under the above provisions, if any dispute arises

between Northrail and CNMEG, both parties are bound to
submit the matter to the HKIAC for arbitration. In case
the HKIAC makes an arbitral award in favor of Northrail,
its enforcement in the Philippines would be subject to the
Special Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Special
Rules). Rule 13 thereof provides for the Recognition and
Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award. Under Rules
13.2 and 13.3 of the Special Rules, the party to arbitration
wishing to have an arbitral award recognized and enforced
in the Philippines must petition the proper regional trial
court (a) where the assets to be attached or levied upon is
located (b) where the acts to be enjoined are being
performed (c) in the principal place of business in the
Philippines of any of the parties (d) if any of the parties is
an individual, where any of those individuals resides or (e)
in the National Capital Judicial Region.
From all the foregoing, it is clear that CNMEG has
agreed that it will not be afforded immunity from suit.
Thus, the courts have the competence and jurisdiction to
ascertain the validity of the Contract Agreement.
Second issue: Whether the Con
tract Agreement is an executive
agreement
Article 2(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (Vienna Convention) defines a treaty as follows:
214
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

[A]n international agreement concluded between States in

written form and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation.

In Bayan Muna v. Romulo, this Court held that an

executive agreement is similar to a treaty, except that the
former (a) does not require legislative concurrence (b) is
usually less formal and (c) deals with a narrower range of
subject matters.50
Despite these differences, to be considered an executive
agreement, the following three requisites provided under
the Vienna Convention must nevertheless concur: (a) the
agreement must be between states (b) it must be written
and (c) it must governed by international law. The first and
the third requisites do not obtain in the case at bar.
A.CNMEG is neither a gov
ernment nor a government
agency.
The Contract Agreement was not concluded between the
Philippines and China, but between Northrail and
CNMEG.51 By the terms of the Contract Agreement,
Northrail is a governmentowned or controlled
corporation, while CNMEG is a corporation duly organized
and created under the laws of the Peoples Republic of
China.52 Thus, both Northrail and CNMEG entered into
the Contract Agreement as entities with personalities
distinct and separate from the Philippine and Chinese
governments, respectively.
Neither can it be said that CNMEG acted as agent of the
Chinese government. As previously discussed, the fact that

_______________
50G.R. No. 159618, 1 February 2011, 641 SCRA 244, 258259.
51Supra note 7.
52Id.

215

VOL. 665, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 215

China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

Amb. Wang, in his letter dated 1 October 2003,53 described

CNMEG as a state corporation and declared its
designation as the Primary Contractor in the Northrail
Project did not mean it was to perform sovereign functions
on behalf of China. That label was only descriptive of its
nature as a stateowned corporation, and did not preclude
it from engaging in purely commercial or proprietary
ventures.
B.The Contract Agreement
is to be governed by Phil
ippine law.
Article 2 of the Conditions of Contract,54 which under
Article 1.1 of the Contract Agreement is an integral part of
the latter, states:

APPLICABLE LAW AND GOVERNING LANGUAGE

The contract shall in all respects be read and construed in
accordance with the laws of the Philippines.
The contract shall be written in English language. All
correspondence and other documents pertaining to the Contract
which are exchanged by the parties shall be written in English
language.

Since the Contract Agreement explicitly provides that

Philippine law shall be applicable, the parties have
effectively conceded that their rights and obligations
thereunder are not governed by international law.
It is therefore clear from the foregoing reasons that the
Contract Agreement does not partake of the nature of an
executive agreement. It is merely an ordinary commercial
contract that can be questioned before the local courts.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED.
Petitioner China National Machinery & Equipment Corp.
(Group) is not entitled to immunity from suit, and the
Contract Agreement is

_______________
53Supra note 6.
54Supra note 48.

216
 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Santamaria

not an executive agreement. CNMEGs prayer for the

issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is
DENIED for being moot and academic. This case is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 145, for further proceedings as regards the validity
of the contracts subject of Civil Case No. 06203.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe

Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr.,
Perez, Mendoza, Reyes and PerlasBernabe, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, J., On Leave.

Petition denied.

Notes.To allow the Republic to revoke the Immunity

Agreement at this late stage will run afoul of the rule that
a party to a compromise cannot ask for a rescission after it
had enjoyed its benefits. (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, 621
SCRA 415 [2010]).
Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his
tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in
any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide
for it in the Constitution or lawit will degrade the dignity
of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he
can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.
(Boac vs. Cadapan, 649 SCRA 618 [2011]).
o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.